I find your opinion to be quite sad and unfortunate. I won’t argue that artificial reproduction methods aren’t ever used unethically, but there are plenty of loving, married couples who seek this treatment because they are infertile through no fault of their own. To suggest that their children were brought into this world any less loved because the parents didn’t have sex in the process is bizarre.
I would truly be bizarre if I had said that, but I didn't. My husband and I didn' have sex to have our second son, who was adopted from Russia, but we don't love him less: that's not the point.
Nor is point that that it is somhow "wrong" to have fertility treatments, i.e. treatments to restore or strengthen the ability to have children through marital intercourse. I don't know anybody who think that's objectionable. Anyone who has problems achieving or carrying a pregnancy would be well served to seek therapeuic intervention from a group that uses ethical and scientifically valid metods to restore normal fertility, such as NaProTechnology -- good group, that.
It is not at all bizarre to note that the human good of secure identity--- on the species, genetic, familial, and personal level --- is safeguarded when a child comes into existence as a result of marital sexual union; and that other choices (e.g. non-marital, non-sexual, non-union) undermine that security.
I's not a question of how much you love the child. It's a question of whether you think human sexual intercourse is inherently meaningful. Not just instrumentally efficient, but meaningful: pertaining to the child as a person and not as a product.